So I’ve read on this forum that there is plenty of evidence for evolution, to Google it, to Wiki it, etc. I’ve honestly seen a lot of stuff but nothing that says ‘evidence’. I’ve read theories and thoughts but have not found irrefutable evidence.I’ve composed a few questions that I found scattered through this forum and one online (source provided) so here goes.

In regards to the big bang, where did the rock, star, asteroid or whatever it was come from?

In regards to the big bang, what caused the explosion?

When in history has an explosion caused order?

When has abiogenesis been observed?

Where is the empirical irrefutable evidence for evolution?

What is an example of something that has been proven by the scientific method in evolution?

Science involves experimenting, to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if is the same about as this operational science? (This one I got from http://creation.com/15-questions There are other questions on this page as well if you care to read them)

Now, if I’m correct, I’m thinking I won’t receive any answers besides things along the line of “Evolution doesn’t explain that, science is working on it, etc”. By all means, if you have an answer, do provide it.

So, in short, the atheists/evolutionists say,

In the beginning something came from something. Whatever the beginning is, we don’t know. Whatever that something was, we don’t know. We also don’t know how something came from nothing. However this something, somehow, did something (maybe exploded) but we don’t know how or why. After this something possibly exploded, it went on to form planets, stars, and everything in the universe over millions and billions of years, but again, we don’t know how. The fine tuning of the universe came to be, because, well it had to, so life could exist. We don’t know how ‘it’ knew what conditions were required for life to exist, but it did. Then, somehow, life started. Something, somehow, caused some kind of reaction to cause life to start evolving. Somehow, someway, everything learned to function and come together piece by piece, and 15 billion years later, we have plants, animals, humans, etc.

Evolution has come up with theories, thoughts, opinions, etc. that are taught in our schools, universities, etc. Not just taught mind you, but taught as fact, as Intelligent Design is never even brought up in biology or in public schools. All sorts of ‘statistics’ (and I use that word loosely) are out there to support evolution, but where is the evidence in evolution that cannot be refuted and that has been scientifically proven as empirical fact? Where are the answers to the above questions?

So I’ve read on this forum that there is plenty of evidence for evolution, to Google it, to Wiki it, etc. I’ve honestly seen a lot of stuff but nothing that says ‘evidence’. I’ve read theories and thoughts but have not found irrefutable evidence.I’ve composed a few questions that I found scattered through this forum and one online (source provided) so here goes.

In regards to the big bang, where did the rock, star, asteroid or whatever it was come from?

In regards to the big bang, what caused the explosion?

When in history has an explosion caused order?

When has abiogenesis been observed?

Where is the empirical irrefutable evidence for evolution?

What is an example of something that has been proven by the scientific method in evolution?

Science involves experimenting, to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if is the same about as this operational science? (This one I got from http://creation.com/15-questions There are other questions on this page as well if you care to read them)

Now, if I’m correct, I’m thinking I won’t receive any answers besides things along the line of “Evolution doesn’t explain that, science is working on it, etc”. By all means, if you have an answer, do provide it.

So, in short, the atheists/evolutionists say,

In the beginning something came from something. Whatever the beginning is, we don’t know. Whatever that something was, we don’t know. We also don’t know how something came from nothing. However this something, somehow, did something (maybe exploded) but we don’t know how or why. After this something possibly exploded, it went on to form planets, stars, and everything in the universe over millions and billions of years, but again, we don’t know how. The fine tuning of the universe came to be, because, well it had to, so life could exist. We don’t know how ‘it’ knew what conditions were required for life to exist, but it did. Then, somehow, life started. Something, somehow, caused some kind of reaction to cause life to start evolving. Somehow, someway, everything learned to function and come together piece by piece, and 15 billion years later, we have plants, animals, humans, etc.

Evolution has come up with theories, thoughts, opinions, etc. that are taught in our schools, universities, etc. Not just taught mind you, but taught as fact, as Intelligent Design is never even brought up in biology or in public schools. All sorts of ‘statistics’ (and I use that word loosely) are out there to support evolution, but where is the evidence in evolution that cannot be refuted and that has been scientifically proven as empirical fact? Where are the answers to the above questions?

Excellent questions. But you'll have a hard time finding an evolutionist that can answer them with anything other than mental fluff.

"In regards to the big bang, where did the rock, star, asteroid or whatever it was come from?"

It was a singularity, and I don't know and neither do you.

"In regards to the big bang, what caused the explosion?"

I don't know and neither do you.

"When in history has an explosion caused order?"

Probably never, no one is supposing the order of the universe was caused by the big bang itself, but rather by the gradual effects of crude forces like gravity. Blow a big hole in the ground and blind forces like wind and rain will eventually fill in the hole and return the landscape to normal.

"When has abiogenesis been observed?"

It hasn't, but you knew that. I don't like dishonesty.

"Where is the empirical irrefutable evidence for evolution?"

Sorry, you asked that before and when I took a great deal of time and effort to lay a lot of evidence out for you and explain why it was important you blew off the comment and didn't even go back to the thread. I won't honor a request twice from someone who has no honor themselves.

"What is an example of something that has been proven by the scientific method in evolution?"

"Science involves experimenting, to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if is the same about as this operational science? (This one I got from http://creation.com/15-questions There are other questions on this page as well if you care to read them)"

This is a talking point often used by many creationists, the insistance that you cannot test anything about the past (when obviously we can, ie paternity/maternity tests, rape kits, fingerprints etc to list some commonly accepted examples from forensic science). Creationists then, after claiming science can't know anything about the distant past, claim to know everything about it in a stunning display of hypocrisy.

If I have a hypothesis that the grand canyon formed in a week, I can test that hypothesis by taking slabs of different kinds of rocks and doing scale testing to see if that type of erosion is physically possible in that time frame. If my experiments work it doesn't prove that it happened, but it does support the hypothesis - and if they don't it proves it couldn't have happened. That's a test, whether creationists want to admit it or not. But no creationist will do that test because they don't want to know the results.

"Now, if I’m correct, I’m thinking I won’t receive any answers besides things along the line of “Evolution doesn’t explain that, science is working on it, etc”. By all means, if you have an answer, do provide it."

So you can proceed to ignore it like last time. Isn't there a rule against copying and pasting stuff from websites and not engaging in discussion in your own thread?

"So, in short, the atheists/evolutionists say,"

No, they don't. "Evolutionists" don't say that the universe exploded from nothing, they say that the universe is observably expanding and it's contents must have been much closer together at an earlier period in time. They don't claim to know how or why it's expanding, barring perhaps some new discoveries to do with the nature of a vacuum itself apparently producing energy and quantum particles which I am not up on.

Scientists try to explain things and understand them. Creationists prefer ignorance because anything they don't have an explanation for they can claim god has to be responsible because there's no other explanation. Creationists explained lightning with thor. Scientists explained lightning with experiments and observation.

"Evolution has come up with theories, thoughts, opinions, etc. that are taught in our schools, universities, etc. Not just taught mind you, but taught as fact, as Intelligent Design is never even brought up in biology or in public schools."

The term "theory" in the scientific sense is not contrary to the term "fact", which is why we have expressions like "true in fact and theory". Theories unify and explain facts, they're made up of, in the case of evolution science, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of facts. And while science never closes the book entirely on anything and is always open to review, there is no serious doubt among even christian scientists (in relevant fields) as to whether life did evolve or does evolve.

"All sorts of ‘statistics’ (and I use that word loosely) are out there to support evolution, but where is the evidence in evolution that cannot be refuted and that has been scientifically proven as empirical fact? Where are the answers to the above questions?"

Again, already took the time to answer and you ran away and asked the question again, pretending like no one was man enough to answer it.

"In regards to the big bang, where did the rock, star, asteroid or whatever it was come from?"

1. It was a singularity, and I don't know and neither do you.

"In regards to the big bang, what caused the explosion?"

2. I don't know and neither do you.

"When in history has an explosion caused order?"

3. Probably never, no one is supposing the order of the universe was caused by the big bang itself, but rather by the gradual effects of crude forces like gravity. Blow a big hole in the ground and blind forces like wind and rain will eventually fill in the hole and return the landscape to normal.

"When has abiogenesis been observed?"

4. It hasn't, but you knew that. I don't like dishonesty.

"Where is the empirical irrefutable evidence for evolution?"

5. Sorry, you asked that before and when I took a great deal of time and effort to lay a lot of evidence out for you and explain why it was important you blew off the comment and didn't even go back to the thread. I won't honor a request twice from someone who has no honor themselves.

"What is an example of something that has been proven by the scientific method in evolution?"

"Science involves experimenting, to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if is the same about as this operational science? (This one I got from http://creation.com/15-questions There are other questions on this page as well if you care to read them)"

7. This is a talking point often used by many creationists, the insistance that you cannot test anything about the past (when obviously we can, ie paternity/maternity tests, rape kits, fingerprints etc to list some commonly accepted examples from forensic science). Creationists then, after claiming science can't know anything about the distant past, claim to know everything about it in a stunning display of hypocrisy.

8. If I have a hypothesis that the grand canyon formed in a week, I can test that hypothesis by taking slabs of different kinds of rocks and doing scale testing to see if that type of erosion is physically possible in that time frame. If my experiments work it doesn't prove that it happened, but it does support the hypothesis - and if they don't it proves it couldn't have happened. That's a test, whether creationists want to admit it or not. But no creationist will do that test because they don't want to know the results.

"So, in short, the atheists/evolutionists say,"

9. No, they don't. "Evolutionists" don't say that the universe exploded from nothing, they say that the universe is observably expanding and it's contents must have been much closer together at an earlier period in time. They don't claim to know how or why it's expanding, barring perhaps some new discoveries to do with the nature of a vacuum itself apparently producing energy and quantum particles which I am not up on.

10. Scientists try to explain things and understand them. Creationists prefer ignorance because anything they don't have an explanation for they can claim god has to be responsible because there's no other explanation. Creationists explained lightning with thor. Scientists explained lightning with experiments and observation.

"Evolution has come up with theories, thoughts, opinions, etc. that are taught in our schools, universities, etc. Not just taught mind you, but taught as fact, as Intelligent Design is never even brought up in biology or in public schools."

11. The term "theory" in the scientific sense is not contrary to the term "fact", which is why we have expressions like "true in fact and theory". Theories unify and explain facts, they're made up of, in the case of evolution science, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of facts. And while science never closes the book entirely on anything and is always open to review, there is no serious doubt among even christian scientists (in relevant fields) as to whether life did evolve or does evolve.

1. You KNOW it was a singularity? Or is it that you think it was a singularity The matter came from something that can defy natural law since according to natural law energy (thus matter) cannot be created nor destroyed only converted.

2. A first cause with God-like attributes, ergo God

3. Your analogy doesn't follow. If gravity could do such a thing then the 2nd Law of thermodynamics would be broken and thus wouldn't be a law. The question is based on the fact that the natural prerogative of the universe is to go from order to chaos, therefore where did the order come from in the first place if all nature does is revert to chaos? Again this implies something that defies natural law.

4. How is asking a question dishonest?

5. Then you can honour me with the empirical evidence, keep in mind that empirical implies that the evidence be, observable, repeatable, measurable and falsifiable.

7. You can only test those things in the past because they have something that can be directly testing in the past that confirms it.. ie- a developing baby is evidence that someone had s@x with the mother. Yet can you scientifically find out what I did 3 years ago on the 2nd Saturday of January? No you can't, its the same with evolution. Since there are no markers which directly link back to evolution occuring, for example similarities in DNA can also be explained as common design, therefore since A has the potential to not be B then A doesn't equal B, meaning you cannot assume evolution from observed similariites in DNA, (this is just one example, but it apples to everything else).

8. I believe this has been tested, go to the Old earth vs Young Earth part of the forum if you want the specifics, since this has nothing to do with evolution.

9. Yet they are ready to proclaim that God is not a valid cause.. Which does mean that they are not as objective as you claim.

10. Please demonstrate a quote of a Creationist equating lightning with Thor... Additionally I think you're a little confused, most of my arguments for the existence of a Creator comes from what we already know about the universe, rather than from ignorance of it. Therefore I'd like you to retract this statement since its patently false.

11. Hard to argue when you have lecturers stating its a fact to students, (mine did, one of them repeated it 10 times in a row)... Despite the "fact" that there are no objective facts within scientific thinking since new evidence can come to light and debunk the current hypothesis / theory / law. Therefore theories don't "unify facts" they are merely a model which one can interpret the evidence.

"You KNOW it was a singularity? Or is it that you think it was a singularity."

I don't "know" squat about it, it's a mathematical extrapolation. But according to everything we know about matter and gravity that much stuff in that close a space would have to form a singularity the same way a certain amount of snow packed into a certain space would have to form a block of ice.

"The matter came from something that can defy natural law since according to natural law energy (thus matter) cannot be created nor destroyed only converted."

The term "law" of physics (or logic) originated hundreds of years ago when it was assumed that they were god's "laws" that the universe had to obey. This idea was abandoned when many of these "laws" were observed to be "broken" and people realized they are not immutable and are merely a category for human observation - things which we have observed which have not yet been observed to not be true. If any "law" of science is truly immutable there is no real way to tell, this is why they are often referred to as "principles" of science because they are universal only in principle. In math terms they're just constants as opposed to variables.

"A first cause with God-like attributes, ergo God"

And you know this how? Were you there?

"Your analogy doesn't follow. If gravity could do such a thing then the 2nd Law of thermodynamics would be broken and thus wouldn't be a law."

First of all, breaking "laws" happens, so who knows. And secondly a hole being filled by wind and rain doesn't violate any law of thermodynamics and if it did it would be broken anyway because that sort of thing happens all the time. The reason it doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics is that a field with a hole in it is not an isolated system, it has energy flowing into it from the sun, the wind, the earth's gravity etc. What the second law states is that a system with no energy flowing into it tends to break down, in other words to build up order or complexity requires energy. One way to demonstrate this is you need to eat to not die, or a baby needs to eat (consume energy) to grow (increase complexity). The universe will eventually, theoretically wind down to nothing but that will take trillions of trillions of years and has nothing to do with evolution or life. The way creationists interpret the second law (which is not at all accurate) that it says that nothing can increase in complexity ever, that wouldn't just make evolution impossible, it would make life itself impossible, since a baby increases in complexity as it grows and you increase in complexity as you gain weight and accumulate fat cells or as your cells repair themselves.

"The question is based on the fact that the natural prerogative of the universe is to go from order to chaos, therefore where did the order come from in the first place if all nature does is revert to chaos? Again this implies something that defies natural law."

As I said "laws" are not dogmatic infallible rules, they're observed principles. It's entirely possible that matter/energy can be created in some event we just have not seen, whether that be a natural occurrence we don't understand or by an act of a creative deity which we don't understand. Either way the origins of matter and energy remain a mystery and nobody understands the mechanism of existence (or creation).

"How is asking a question dishonest?"

It would be like me asking "what book of the bible did jesus himself write?" instead of just pointing out that jesus didn't write any of the texts himself. It's kind of an obnoxious way to make a point.

"Then you can honour me with the empirical evidence, keep in mind that empirical implies that the evidence be, observable, repeatable, measurable and falsifiable."

You can read my response in his other thread where I give multiple examples of evolutionary predictions being tested against discoveries in the fossil record and here's a biologist (he's christian too by the way) talking about some evolutionary predictions in genetics and the fossil record:

Okay, will do. You will forgive me if, in this reply, I give only one example of a correct prediction for each for the sake of not writing an encyclopedia.

Common ancestry: well I actually already gave an example of an evolutionary prediction for this one (the first video). Another good one is endogenous retroviruses or ERVs, viruses that reproduce by injecting their DNA into that of their host's cells so the host's cells will accidentally copy the virus allowing it to reproduce - these viruses occasionally become inactivated by mutations and are passed on to our offspring. As a result a significant chunk of our genome is actually made of fragments of broken viruses and the prediction was made that if we share a common ancestor with other primates we should have not just the same genetic markers but also some of the same viruses in the same point of our genome (which is astronomically unlikely to happen even once, the same virus being injected into the same point of the genome of two different species and happening to mutate in the same way and be passed on is pretty much mathematically impossible). So if we found one of these it would be powerful evidence for common ancestry. So far we've found like 50 that we have in common with other primates if memory serves.

Natural selection:

I will do this one if you ask, but isn't natural selection pretty much accepted at this point?

Speciation:

It's been observed in nature and in the lab, google "observed instances of speciation" for lots of examples. Also ring species are a good example. I elaborated a great deal more in another thread earlier so I'm being lazy here : ) Will elaborate more if you like.

That ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny:

In other words that species in the womb have traits from their evolutionary past. Snakes in the womb have limbs, whales begin to develop hind limbs, and humans even have tails at one stage and body-wide fur (on girls too) called lanugo which is usually shed in the womb but sometimes babies are born hairy. Just to give some examples.

"You can only test those things in the past because they have something that can be directly testing in the past that confirms it.. ie- a developing baby is evidence that someone had s@x with the mother."

How is having someone's DNA and their parents' DNA enough evidence to prove how closely related they are, but having my DNA and a bonobo's DNA not enough evidence to establish how closely related we are?

"Yet can you scientifically find out what I did 3 years ago on the 2nd Saturday of January?"

Probably not that precisely, no. But a scientist could learn a lot about you and your ancestors from examining your DNA and physiology.

"No you can't, its the same with evolution. Since there are no markers which directly link back to evolution occuring, for example similarities in DNA can also be explained as common design, therefore since A has the potential to not be B then A doesn't equal B, meaning you cannot assume evolution from observed similariites in DNA, (this is just one example, but it apples to everything else)."

There is no logic to that, there is nothing that must be true about DNA that has a "common designer" or that can't be true if it has a common designer, so no predictions can be made or tests be performed. But countless things have to be true about our DNA if life evolved via common ancestry. I gave a video with an example earlier. The same is true of the fossil record.

"I believe this has been tested, go to the Old earth vs Young Earth part of the forum if you want the specifics, since this has nothing to do with evolution."

If it has I'd be interested to see a link - and it was a response to your claim that nothing in the distant past can be tested. When I give an example your response is "I believe this has been tested". That pretty much says it.

"Yet they are ready to proclaim that God is not a valid cause.. Which does mean that they are not as objective as you claim."

I don't know what you're referring to without a link.

"Please demonstrate a quote of a Creationist equating lightning with Thor..."

Not all creationists are christian. Think about it.

"Additionally I think you're a little confused, most of my arguments for the existence of a Creator comes from what we already know about the universe, rather than from ignorance of it. Therefore I'd like you to retract this statement since its patently false."

Isn't pretty much every creationist argument "you can't explain why x, y or z is so, therefore god must have made it that way". You demand I show how evolution is experimentally testable, what creationist experiment can you show that has the potential to prove there is no god?

"Hard to argue when you have lecturers stating its a fact to students, (mine did, one of them repeated it 10 times in a row)... Despite the "fact" that there are no objective facts within scientific thinking since new evidence can come to light and debunk the current hypothesis / theory / law. Therefore theories don't "unify facts" they are merely a model which one can interpret the evidence."

Now we're just quibbling over semantics. I agree that nothing is sacred in science, but in the everyday sense of the word that the earth goes around the sun is a fact. And that bacteria adapt to antibiotics is a fact too. Sorry, but it is.

1. I don't "know" squat about it, it's a mathematical extrapolation. But according to everything we know about matter and gravity that much stuff in that close a space would have to form a singularity the same way a certain amount of snow packed into a certain space would have to form a block of ice.

2. The term "law" of physics (or logic) originated hundreds of years ago when it was assumed that they were god's "laws" that the universe had to obey. This idea was abandoned when many of these "laws" were observed to be "broken" and people realized they are not immutable and are merely a category for human observation - things which we have observed which have not yet been observed to not be true. If any "law" of science is truly immutable there is no real way to tell, this is why they are often referred to as "principles" of science because they are universal only in principle. In math terms they're just constants as opposed to variables.

3. And you know this how? Were you there?

4. First of all, breaking "laws" happens, so who knows. And secondly a hole being filled by wind and rain doesn't violate any law of thermodynamics and if it did it would be broken anyway because that sort of thing happens all the time.

5. The reason it doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics is that a field with a hole in it is not an isolated system, it has energy flowing into it from the sun, the wind, the earth's gravity etc. What the second law states is that a system with no energy flowing into it tends to break down, in other words to build up order or complexity requires energy. One way to demonstrate this is you need to eat to not die, or a baby needs to eat (consume energy) to grow (increase complexity). The universe will eventually, theoretically wind down to nothing but that will take trillions of trillions of years and has nothing to do with evolution or life. The way creationists interpret the second law (which is not at all accurate) that it says that nothing can increase in complexity ever, that wouldn't just make evolution impossible, it would make life itself impossible, since a baby increases in complexity as it grows and you increase in complexity as you gain weight and accumulate fat cells or as your cells repair themselves.

6. As I said "laws" are not dogmatic infallible rules, they're observed principles. It's entirely possible that matter/energy can be created in some event we just have not seen, whether that be a natural occurrence we don't understand or by an act of a creative deity which we don't understand. Either way the origins of matter and energy remain a mystery and nobody understands the mechanism of existence (or creation).

7. You can read my response in his other thread where I give multiple examples of evolutionary predictions being tested against discoveries in the fossil record and here's a biologist (he's christian too by the way) talking about some evolutionary predictions in genetics and the fossil record:

8. Common ancestry: well I actually already gave an example of an evolutionary prediction for this one (the first video). Another good one is endogenous retroviruses or ERVs, viruses that reproduce by injecting their DNA into that of their host's cells so the host's cells will accidentally copy the virus allowing it to reproduce - these viruses occasionally become inactivated by mutations and are passed on to our offspring. As a result a significant chunk of our genome is actually made of fragments of broken viruses and the prediction was made that if we share a common ancestor with other primates we should have not just the same genetic markers but also some of the same viruses in the same point of our genome (which is astronomically unlikely to happen even once, the same virus being injected into the same point of the genome of two different species and happening to mutate in the same way and be passed on is pretty much mathematically impossible). So if we found one of these it would be powerful evidence for common ancestry. So far we've found like 50 that we have in common with other primates if memory serves.

9. I will do this one if you ask, but isn't natural selection pretty much accepted at this point?

10. Speciation: It's been observed in nature and in the lab, google "observed instances of speciation" for lots of examples. Also ring species are a good example. I elaborated a great deal more in another thread earlier so I'm being lazy here : ) Will elaborate more if you like.

11. In other words that species in the womb have traits from their evolutionary past. Snakes in the womb have limbs, whales begin to develop hind limbs, and humans even have tails at one stage and body-wide fur (on girls too) called lanugo which is usually shed in the womb but sometimes babies are born hairy. Just to give some examples.

12. How is having someone's DNA and their parents' DNA enough evidence to prove how closely related they are, but having my DNA and a bonobo's DNA not enough evidence to establish how closely related we are?

13. Probably not that precisely, no.

14. There is no logic to that, there is nothing that must be true about DNA that has a "common designer" or that can't be true if it has a common designer, so no predictions can be made or tests be performed. But countless things have to be true about our DNA if life evolved via common ancestry. I gave a video with an example earlier. The same is true of the fossil record.

"I believe this has been tested, go to the Old earth vs Young Earth part of the forum if you want the specifics, since this has nothing to do with evolution."

15. If it has I'd be interested to see a link - and it was a response to your claim that nothing in the distant past can be tested. When I give an example your response is "I believe this has been tested". That pretty much says it.

16. I don't know what you're referring to without a link.

17. Isn't pretty much every creationist argument "you can't explain why x, y or z is so, therefore god must have made it that way".

18. You demand I show how evolution is experimentally testable, what creationist experiment can you show that has the potential to prove there is no god?

19. Now we're just quibbling over semantics. I agree that nothing is sacred in science, but in the everyday sense of the word that the earth goes around the sun is a fact. And that bacteria adapt to antibiotics is a fact too. Sorry, but it is.

1. According to everything we know about matter and energy? Feel free to elaborate on these things... Since you haven't given evidence of such yet.

2. Really.,. So when it suits you natural laws can be broken changed or deemed useless... All because the laws of nature go against your own beliefs... Ace scientific critical thinking right here!! The fact of the matter is that the naturalist belief defies scientific laws, even though the naturalist places natural law as the be-all-end-all of everything... Meaning the naturalist belief really is self contradictory.

3. Logic, pure logic. I have already discussed this on the other thread must I repeat myself here because you cannot accept what you've already been shown?

A first cause needs to be - timeless: outside of time, eternal (so as to not needing a cause itself)- spaceless: something of this universe cannot create the universe therefore the first cause is required to be outside of space on this plane of existence.- Omipotent: In order to create the universe the first cause needs to be all powerful- Defy naural laws: Creating energy defies the 1st law of thermodynamics, creating order defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics

4. I already said that your analogy was not correct so why try and use it. Gravity filling in a hole is not creating ordered energy, ie- molecules of higher order.

As I explained if the universe is naturally creating more chaos then if the process is "natural" and follows natural law then no order should be created since it is defying the prerogative of nature (create more chaos). This is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is all about. Therefore if gravity can defy this then the 2nd law shouldn't exist since gravity can defy it.

Now, other than silly analogies that don't even fit the problem do you have evidence that gravity can do what you claim it can? If not then you must admit that yourcclaims here are not scientific.

5. The universe is an isolated system ergo mypoint that your analogy doesn't apply here

6. So you're response is essentially, 'well maybe there was this special time that defied natural laws, (even though we claim its a natural event so must follow natural law anyway)'... Do you see how this is unscientific and 100% based on faith?

7. Link to your post

I don't care about the youtube videos I am discussing this with you, not him.

8. This is merely an observation, even if you deem it logical to assume "evolution did it", the scientific method still requires experimentation to verify taht ERVs are a product of evolution over time. Otherwise you are left with an unverfied hypothesis.

9. It is accepted as a means of deleting information from the gene pool and restricting the differences within a species.

10. Generally whenever an evolutionist talks about "observed" occurences of speciation they are discussing changes within the same species, variation.. Bacteria resistance, dark and light moths etc. The point to keep in mind here is that NONE of these actually speciate, they only become different breeds of the same species... Unless you want to define species as breeds as some evolutionists I know do, however when breeds breed then what do you call the offspring, since that cross breed would "technically" be a new species, meaning that form of classification is downright stupid.

11. Evidence. Is this a revival of Haekle?

12. Firstly the methods used are entirely different. Determining DNA between humans is done with unchanged DNA. Whereas when looking at DNA for evolutionary purposes, they add in gaps in order to align the DNA for a higher % of similarity. Therefore this is literally cheating since the DNA code is being modified in order to give a higher % of similarity than what would be if unmodified DNA was used. If you wish to compare the two here, I suggest you start with ensuring the methods are the same.

13. Therefore you cannot scientifically experiment on the past, it is literally impossible.

14. Common design common designer, nuff said. Seriously each and every bit of evidence can be viewed and used for Creationism. You need to understand that its not a matter of evidence vs faith, its a battle of worldviews and each interpretation of the evidence.

15. Total misunderstood me! I am saying that you cannot VERIFY what occured in the past, however you can do experiments to reconstruct what may have happened, (however you cannot VERIFY IT).

16. How about a quote

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."(Richard Lewontin, Review of Sagan's 'The Demon-Haunted World', in New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, pp.28,31

17. Please demonstrate where I have made that claim, rather than posing strawmen... (as I said you'd soon have an army of them).

18. Yes I do demand that, since evolutionists claim that it is scientific. If you admit that evolution is not scientifc then there is no need for you to give scientific evidence.

19. Not semantics, you are claiming that theories are facts, or are a group of facts. I have shown how you are wrong in this

No-one ever doubted that bacteria adapt to antibiotics, we doubt the potential extrapolation that adaption to antibiotics over time will create something other than a bacteria.

I'm having issues using the quote feature, so I'll be using quotation marks instead where applicable.

I asked, In regards to the big bang, where did the rock, star, asteroid or whatever it was come from?

You replied "It was a singularity, and I don't know and neither do you."

Actually, it doesn’t apply to me as I don’t believe the big bang ever occurred so stating 'neither do you' is irrelevant.

I asked, "In regards to the big bang, what caused the explosion?"

You replied "I don't know and neither do you."

Again, I don’t believe the big bang ever occurred.

I asked, “When in history has an explosion caused order?"

You replied "Probably never, no one is supposing the order of the universe was caused by the big bang itself, but rather by the gradual effects of crude forces like gravity. Blow a big hole in the ground and blind forces like wind and rain will eventually fill in the hole and return the landscape to normal."

Show me the scientific evidence that the big bang, (for which you have no evidence of where it came from or why it exploded) and these gradual effects of crude forces like gravity caused the order of the universe.

I asked, "When has abiogenesis been observed?"

You replied, "It hasn't, but you knew that. I don't like dishonesty."

You are correct by stating abiogenesis hasn’t occurred. Yet you stick to believing it occurred and there is no evidence for it. As far as dishonesty, I am not being dishonest by asking this question again. I combined it with some other questions on this thread to try show the lack of so called evidence for evolution.

I asked, "Where is the empirical irrefutable evidence for evolution?"

You replied, “Sorry, you asked that before and when I took a great deal of time and effort to lay a lot of evidence out for you and explain why it was important you blew off the comment and didn't even go back to the thread. I won't honor a request twice from someone who has no honor themselves."

I reread your previous response on another thread. Your empirical irrefutable evidence for evolution is, "Which brings us to the evolutionary explanation. That you and your dog (and pretty much everything else) are distant cousins, and you have some traits in common and some DNA in common because you inherited it from a common ancestor a very long time ago. Fortunately this is testable because many things must be true if this is true, like there must be intermediate forms showing the appearance of these various traits in a logical chronological order (and there is, ie fins appear first, then fins with wrist and digit bones, then amphibious creatures with legs, then reptiles, then mammals and eventually canids and humans in that order)"

I also asked, What is an example of something that has been proven by the scientific method in evolution

I should have wrote, Has the scientific method proved evolution? If so, what is it?

You also state, "This is a talking point often used by many creationists, the insistance that you cannot test anything about the past (when obviously we can, ie paternity/maternity tests, rape kits, fingerprints etc to list some commonly accepted examples from forensic science). Creationists then, after claiming science can't know anything about the distant past, claim to know everything about it in a stunning display of hypocrisy."

I never said you can’t test anything about the past and please provide a link or quote to a creationist that states we can’t know anything about the past.

One of the main things you forgot when mentioning paternity/maternity tests, rape kits, fingerprints, etc., is eyewitness accounts.

The Bible was written by individuals that were there recording the Word of God. We take American history as fact, world history as fact, and many other events in history as fact through documentation and eyewitness. However, this is ignored when it comes to the Bible.Yes, we can test the past. I’m waiting to see how the past was tested in relevance to evolution and what has been proven by those tests.I’m missing the irrefutable, empirical evidence part in your statement. You are saying that since dogs and humans have some traits common and some DNA in common, that this is the irrefutable empirical evidence for evolution? Fins appear first, then fins with wrists, digit bones, in a logical chronological order? Again, where is the evidence for this that proves evolution occurred?

You said, "But why stop there? Lots of other animals are missing common traits, so lets test evolution some more. Whales don't have hind limbs, where's the earlier version that has them? Ambulocetus. Horses have four limbs, but only have one digit on the end of each (their hooves are literally giant toenails and yes are made of the same stuff yours are because of common ancestry, a chemical called keratin which is also what your dog's claws are made of). So they must have had more digits in the past if evolution is true - turns out the further back we go in the fossil record the more digits the horse-like fossils have. But wait, there's more! Most snakes don't have legs at all, and the ones that do the legs are leftover and non-functional (why should that be?). But they do have legs in the fossil record."

I still fail to see to see how this proves evolution and disproves creation. Are you saying that just because we have anything in common with another animal or mammal, evolution is irrefutable empirical fact? Where is the irrefutable empirical evidence that proves evolution occurred and this common ancestry?

You said, "Two reasons - one is that not nearly all changes are evident in the fossil record, these species' organs, immune systems etc could've changed dramatically and there'd be no evidence - another is that major anatomical changes are usually prompted by changes in the environment, the introduction of new predators or prey or dramatic changes in the weather - some environments have been more or less static, or species have been in successful niches where the proverb "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies biochemically as well as it does in society. But it is a fact that not one species alive today appears in the fossil record from 500 million years ago."

They could have changed dramatically. “Could” is the key word. I don’t know and you don’t know. What we do know is that The structure of living fossils is virtually unchanged. That is observable and a fact as they can be compared to living creatures today.

Please back up your fact that states, "But it is a fact that not one species alive today appears in the fossil record from 500 million years ago"

Here is a photo chart of some more insects, leaves, sea creatures that show virtually unchanged over supposedly 100s of millions of years of evolution:

Also, fossils very similar to prokaryotes are found in rocks that are supposedly 3500 million years old. http://www.icr.org/article/774/ The bolded portions are my emphasis. Does this not debunk your "not one species alive today appears in the fossil record from 500 million years ago" statement?

According to the above link, “The most important modern prokaryotes are probably the bacteria and the blue-green algae, and these certainly should be considered living fossils. They have been found in abundance in 3.4 billion year-old rocks from South America. Modern soil bacteria have been found in Precambrian rocks. One wonders why, if evolution really works, these "primitive" organisms have not changed significantly in over a billion years.”

I said, "The order of the universe cries out God's creation. The position of the sun, the moon, gravity, the rotation of the earth, etc. Evolutionists explanation in a nut shell: "It just happened to get it right".

You said, "That's not my explanation. Galaxies have stars that travel more or less around the center of the galaxy not by and kind of magical fine tuning, but by the black hole at the core of the galaxy ripping apart and consuming or flinging into the void between galaxies any stars that aren't in the right trajectory. Younger, less stable (and much more radioactive) galaxies are called quasar galaxies, look it up. If you set a forest on fire the fire will eventually burn itself out - that's not intelligent design that's just unsustainable chaos. I could go into similar depth explaining the positions of the sun, moon, gravity etc. Will if you like"

So by the big bang that you previously stated you don’t know where it came from, how it exploded or that, in regards to when has an explosion ever caused order, you wrote, “Probably never, no one is supposing the order of the universe was caused by the big bang itself, but rather by the gradual effects of crude forces like gravity”

Again I ask, where is the empirical irrefutable evidence for this that you claim as fact? What you have provided does not show me HOW evolution describes the fine tuning of the universe and how it came to be.

I said, "We see design behind vehicles, churches, houses, etc., but when it comes to something as amazing and complex as our planet and life itself... it's... luck?"

You said, "It's a bit more complicated than "luck". Want to know why the earth is round? Because liquid follows the path of least resistence, which in zero gravity spontaneously forms a ball shape. The earth was formed by the impact of many planets and planetoids, asteroids and comets over a long period of time which produced enough heat to liquify rock and metal (the earth is still almost entirely liquid rock and metal today). This ball of rock and metal was spinning so it formed into a ball that is slightly fat at the equator. Not nearly everything you chalk up to "god did it" is as mysterious as you make it seem. You have access to google and wikipedia, the answers to many of these questions are already known."

My question here isn’t really a ‘provide some facts’ question. However, since you state, “The earth was formed by the impact of many planets and planetoids, asteroids, and comets over a long period of time….” I would like to see your empirical irrefutable fact for this fact of yours.Agreed, I have access to the internet but I’m on a discussion board for a reason, just like everyone else. I wish to discuss this particular topic with others not just read articles about it from Wikipedia.

You asked me, "Do you understand the basics of natural selection by the way?"

If you wish, start this as another topic, as this could be extremely lengthy.

You replied "The geological column contains not just a few billion years of fossil history, but also the history of the formation and erosion of mountain ranges (not a quick process), the entire oceans that have come and gone, the history of multiple mass extinction level meteor impacts (there's a crater in canada 100 kilometers across, a meteor that big would've released more heat and energy on impact than every nuke in the world, many times over - you think the indians were there when it hit?) It also contains the history of every ice age, massive river valleys that no river has gone through for thousands of years, the history of billions of years of volcanic activity etc. Everything about it screams old earth. Which is why you will have a hard time finding a young earth geologist even if you just ask christian geologists how old the earth is. As for no god, I can answer if you like but this is already too long."

Few billion years of fossil history? Again, show me the empirical, irrefutable fact that fossils are billions of years old. If you could do the same for the rest of your above statement, it would be appreciated. Do you believe that the evolutionary dating methods (i.e. radiometric) are accurate? If interested, here is article with some problems with radiometric dating.

I asked, "The Big Bang...How did 'something' (the rock/asteroid/whatever) come from nothing? How did this 'something' explode? What was the cause?"

You replied "No one claims to know how the universe began, the big bang doesn't attempt to explain it's existence, just wind the clock back a bit. The big bang (which was first proposed by a catholic priest) simply explains the expansion and cooling of the universe from an earlier state."

Not true. Creationists claim the world began with God. There are Christians like this catholic priest that mix evolution with creation but that is a different topic. Wind the clock back a bit? To and for what purpose?

You also said "Neither the universe coming into existence on it's own or just always being there makes any sense to me. Nor does a god coming into existence on it's own or just always being there and then making a universe by some unknown means. I reject both as nonsense and admit I simply don't know how the universe began."

Then why believe the universe came into existence on its own? What from evolution has proven this has happened? All I can tell you is if you actually pray to God and read the Bible without trying to tear it apart word for word and truly study it, you WILL come to understand it. I understand this is hard for people that don’t believe in God, but as you say, you reject both as nonsense, and since you seem to be more on the side of evolution, what have you got to lose by trying to earnestly learn about God and creation? You’re already on this forum poking around, no harm in taking one more step!

I said "I find it ironic that many atheists find creationists to be loony because we have our faith in God. Yet, in a way, atheists have MORE faith than us because of what they believe!"

To which you replied, "No, atheists really don't."

Christians believe in God, the Bible, and (many) believe in a literal creation account of the universe, the earth, and life.Evolutionists believe something came from something and that something exploded somehow and somehow that something formed the earth and life. Given historical and archeological accuracy of the Bible and eyewitness accounts of the Bible, why is evolution a more solid theory? Does it prove creation? No. Believing in creation or evolution are both steps of faith. It comes down to what you have faith in, God, or nothing.

You said, "Abiogenesis is hypothetical at best, I doubt you'll find any atheist pushing the idea around as being more than that."

They might not push it around as you say, but they do say it happened as that is how the universe supposedly started. The foundation for the theory is already weak. There is just no evidence for it. Yet evolution is taught as fact when it is not.

You said, " I don't need to have all of the answers to know that you don't have any more than I do."

I never said I have all the answers.

I asked, "How do organs know what functions to perform? Does evolution explain that?"

To which you replied, "They don't "know" anything. Evolution is not a conscious process. You sound like you aren't familiar with the basic mechanics of natural selection. I would explain it but this is already very long."

Yet all the organs just know what to perform in order to make life possible and evolution doesn’t explain HOW they know what to do, they just… ‘do’. It’s not just this that myself or other creationists have a problem with, it’s the 100s of 1000s of extremely delicate processes whether it’s a heart pumping, the respiratory stem, the complexity of DNA structure, cell formation, etc. and even life itself evolutionists is all chalked up to evolution, a random process for lack of empirical, irrefutable facts.

Picture a desert with sand. After a few million years, would a computer evolve? Everything from the CPU, RAM, hard drive, keyboard, monitor, mouse, cables, etc. come to be out of nothing? Would it start off as a plastic shell, then eventually turn into a fully functional computer?Most if not all would say no. Yet this happens to be the explanation for this universe and everything in it. Are not emotions, thoughts, life, etc so much more complex than a computer?

Agreed on natural selection, another thread would be more appropriate.

I asked, "Where is the observable, testable, repeatable evidence for evolution?"

You say, "Scientists try to explain things and understand them. Creationists prefer ignorance because anything they don't have an explanation for they can claim god has to be responsible because there's no other explanation. Creationists explained lightning with thor. Scientists explained lightning with experiments and observation"

They try to explain things based off what they THINK. That is opinion and not science. Evolution is taught in schools as irrefutable fact across the world without mention of God. Creationists prefer ignorance because we want evidence? I can’t speak for everyone on this board but I can say that myself and probably most here will not tell you creation is fact. We will tell you about the problems with the fossil record and the dating methods. We will tell you that the big bang doesn’t have a leg to stand on because there is no proof. We will tell you that we believe in God and the Bible because that is our duty. We will show numerous articles, studies, etc. that poke holes in the theory of evolution. But if either was absolute fact, this discussion would not be taking place. They are both matters of opinion. I see the problems with evolution and the lack of facts. I see the universe as designed, not a product of chance, luck, or whatever you want to call it. I see no empirical irrefutable evidence for evolution. I put my faith in God.

I'll close this by quoting 2 Peter, Chapter 1, verses 12-21

12 So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13 I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”[b]18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Agnophilo123, I'm having issues using the quote feature, so I'll be using quotation marks instead where applicable. I asked, In regards to the big bang, where did the rock, star, asteroid or whatever it was come from? You replied "It was a singularity, and I don't know and neither do you." Actually, it doesn’t apply to me as I don’t believe the big bang ever occurred so stating 'neither do you' is irrelevant. I asked, "In regards to the big bang, what caused the explosion?" You replied "I don't know and neither do you." Again, I don’t believe the big bang ever occurred. I asked, “When in history has an explosion caused order?" You replied "Probably never, no one is supposing the order of the universe was caused by the big bang itself, but rather by the gradual effects of crude forces like gravity. Blow a big hole in the ground and blind forces like wind and rain will eventually fill in the hole and return the landscape to normal." Show me the scientific evidence that the big bang, (for which you have no evidence of where it came from or why it exploded) and these gradual effects of crude forces like gravity caused the order of the universe. I asked, "When has abiogenesis been observed?" You replied, "It hasn't, but you knew that. I don't like dishonesty." You are correct by stating abiogenesis hasn’t occurred. Yet you stick to believing it occurred and there is no evidence for it. As far as dishonesty, I am not being dishonest by asking this question again. I combined it with some other questions on this thread to try show the lack of so called evidence for evolution. I asked, "Where is the empirical irrefutable evidence for evolution?" You replied, “Sorry, you asked that before and when I took a great deal of time and effort to lay a lot of evidence out for you and explain why it was important you blew off the comment and didn't even go back to the thread. I won't honor a request twice from someone who has no honor themselves." I reread your previous response on another thread. Your empirical irrefutable evidence for evolution is, "Which brings us to the evolutionary explanation. That you and your dog (and pretty much everything else) are distant cousins, and you have some traits in common and some DNA in common because you inherited it from a common ancestor a very long time ago. Fortunately this is testable because many things must be true if this is true, like there must be intermediate forms showing the appearance of these various traits in a logical chronological order (and there is, ie fins appear first, then fins with wrist and digit bones, then amphibious creatures with legs, then reptiles, then mammals and eventually canids and humans in that order)" I also asked, What is an example of something that has been proven by the scientific method in evolution I should have wrote, Has the scientific method proved evolution? If so, what is it? You also state, "This is a talking point often used by many creationists, the insistance that you cannot test anything about the past (when obviously we can, ie paternity/maternity tests, rape kits, fingerprints etc to list some commonly accepted examples from forensic science). Creationists then, after claiming science can't know anything about the distant past, claim to know everything about it in a stunning display of hypocrisy." I never said you can’t test anything about the past and please provide a link or quote to a creationist that states we can’t know anything about the past. One of the main things you forgot when mentioning paternity/maternity tests, rape kits, fingerprints, etc., is eyewitness accounts. The Bible was written by individuals that were there recording the Word of God. We take American history as fact, world history as fact, and many other events in history as fact through documentation and eyewitness. However, this is ignored when it comes to the Bible. Yes, we can test the past. I’m waiting to see how the past was tested in relevance to evolution and what has been proven by those tests. I’m missing the irrefutable, empirical evidence part in your statement. You are saying that since dogs and humans have some traits common and some DNA in common, that this is the irrefutable empirical evidence for evolution? Fins appear first, then fins with wrists, digit bones, in a logical chronological order? Again, where is the evidence for this that proves evolution occurred? You said, "But why stop there? Lots of other animals are missing common traits, so lets test evolution some more. Whales don't have hind limbs, where's the earlier version that has them? Ambulocetus. Horses have four limbs, but only have one digit on the end of each (their hooves are literally giant toenails and yes are made of the same stuff yours are because of common ancestry, a chemical called keratin which is also what your dog's claws are made of). So they must have had more digits in the past if evolution is true - turns out the further back we go in the fossil record the more digits the horse-like fossils have. But wait, there's more! Most snakes don't have legs at all, and the ones that do the legs are leftover and non-functional (why should that be?). But they do have legs in the fossil record." I still fail to see to see how this proves evolution and disproves creation. Are you saying that just because we have anything in common with another animal or mammal, evolution is irrefutable empirical fact? Where is the irrefutable empirical evidence that proves evolution occurred and this common ancestry? You said, "Two reasons - one is that not nearly all changes are evident in the fossil record, these species' organs, immune systems etc could've changed dramatically and there'd be no evidence - another is that major anatomical changes are usually prompted by changes in the environment, the introduction of new predators or prey or dramatic changes in the weather - some environments have been more or less static, or species have been in successful niches where the proverb "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies biochemically as well as it does in society. But it is a fact that not one species alive today appears in the fossil record from 500 million years ago." They could have changed dramatically. “Could” is the key word. I don’t know and you don’t know. What we do know is that The structure of living fossils is virtually unchanged. That is observable and a fact as they can be compared to living creatures today. Please back up your fact that states, "But it is a fact that not one species alive today appears in the fossil record from 500 million years ago" Here is a photo chart of some more insects, leaves, sea creatures that show virtually unchanged over supposedly 100s of millions of years of evolution: http://www.answersin...ossil-chart.pdf Also, fossils very similar to prokaryotes are found in rocks that are supposedly 3500 million years old. http://www.icr.org/article/774/ The bolded portions are my emphasis. Does this not debunk your "not one species alive today appears in the fossil record from 500 million years ago" statement? According to the above link, “The most important modern prokaryotes are probably the bacteria and the blue-green algae, and these certainly should be considered living fossils. They have been found in abundance in 3.4 billion year-old rocks from South America. Modern soil bacteria have been found in Precambrian rocks. One wonders why, if evolution really works, these "primitive" organisms have not changed significantly in over a billion years.” A few more examples of living fossils with photos are here: http://creationrevol...living-fossils/ I said, "The order of the universe cries out God's creation. The position of the sun, the moon, gravity, the rotation of the earth, etc. Evolutionists explanation in a nut shell: "It just happened to get it right". You said, "That's not my explanation. Galaxies have stars that travel more or less around the center of the galaxy not by and kind of magical fine tuning, but by the black hole at the core of the galaxy ripping apart and consuming or flinging into the void between galaxies any stars that aren't in the right trajectory. Younger, less stable (and much more radioactive) galaxies are called quasar galaxies, look it up. If you set a forest on fire the fire will eventually burn itself out - that's not intelligent design that's just unsustainable chaos. I could go into similar depth explaining the positions of the sun, moon, gravity etc. Will if you like" So by the big bang that you previously stated you don’t know where it came from, how it exploded or that, in regards to when has an explosion ever caused order, you wrote, “Probably never, no one is supposing the order of the universe was caused by the big bang itself, but rather by the gradual effects of crude forces like gravity” Again I ask, where is the empirical irrefutable evidence for this that you claim as fact? What you have provided does not show me HOW evolution describes the fine tuning of the universe and how it came to be. I said, "We see design behind vehicles, churches, houses, etc., but when it comes to something as amazing and complex as our planet and life itself... it's... luck?" You said, "It's a bit more complicated than "luck". Want to know why the earth is round? Because liquid follows the path of least resistence, which in zero gravity spontaneously forms a ball shape. The earth was formed by the impact of many planets and planetoids, asteroids and comets over a long period of time which produced enough heat to liquify rock and metal (the earth is still almost entirely liquid rock and metal today). This ball of rock and metal was spinning so it formed into a ball that is slightly fat at the equator. Not nearly everything you chalk up to "god did it" is as mysterious as you make it seem. You have access to google and wikipedia, the answers to many of these questions are already known." My question here isn’t really a ‘provide some facts’ question. However, since you state, “The earth was formed by the impact of many planets and planetoids, asteroids, and comets over a long period of time….” I would like to see your empirical irrefutable fact for this fact of yours. Agreed, I have access to the internet but I’m on a discussion board for a reason, just like everyone else. I wish to discuss this particular topic with others not just read articles about it from Wikipedia. You asked me, "Do you understand the basics of natural selection by the way?" If you wish, start this as another topic, as this could be extremely lengthy. I asked, ”What in this universe cries 'old earth', 'evolution', 'no design', 'no God'?" You replied "The geological column contains not just a few billion years of fossil history, but also the history of the formation and erosion of mountain ranges (not a quick process), the entire oceans that have come and gone, the history of multiple mass extinction level meteor impacts (there's a crater in canada 100 kilometers across, a meteor that big would've released more heat and energy on impact than every nuke in the world, many times over - you think the indians were there when it hit?) It also contains the history of every ice age, massive river valleys that no river has gone through for thousands of years, the history of billions of years of volcanic activity etc. Everything about it screams old earth. Which is why you will have a hard time finding a young earth geologist even if you just ask christian geologists how old the earth is. As for no god, I can answer if you like but this is already too long." Few billion years of fossil history? Again, show me the empirical, irrefutable fact that fossils are billions of years old. If you could do the same for the rest of your above statement, it would be appreciated. Do you believe that the evolutionary dating methods (i.e. radiometric) are accurate? If interested, here is article with some problems with radiometric dating. http://www.christian...g/aig-c007.html By all means, if you wish to answer the ‘no God’ part, do so. I asked, "The Big Bang...How did 'something' (the rock/asteroid/whatever) come from nothing? How did this 'something' explode? What was the cause?" You replied "No one claims to know how the universe began, the big bang doesn't attempt to explain it's existence, just wind the clock back a bit. The big bang (which was first proposed by a catholic priest) simply explains the expansion and cooling of the universe from an earlier state." Not true. Creationists claim the world began with God. There are Christians like this catholic priest that mix evolution with creation but that is a different topic. Wind the clock back a bit? To and for what purpose? You also said "Neither the universe coming into existence on it's own or just always being there makes any sense to me. Nor does a god coming into existence on it's own or just always being there and then making a universe by some unknown means. I reject both as nonsense and admit I simply don't know how the universe began." Then why believe the universe came into existence on its own? What from evolution has proven this has happened? All I can tell you is if you actually pray to God and read the Bible without trying to tear it apart word for word and truly study it, you WILL come to understand it. I understand this is hard for people that don’t believe in God, but as you say, you reject both as nonsense, and since you seem to be more on the side of evolution, what have you got to lose by trying to earnestly learn about God and creation? You’re already on this forum poking around, no harm in taking one more step! I said "I find it ironic that many atheists find creationists to be loony because we have our faith in God. Yet, in a way, atheists have MORE faith than us because of what they believe!" To which you replied, "No, atheists really don't." Christians believe in God, the Bible, and (many) believe in a literal creation account of the universe, the earth, and life. Evolutionists believe something came from something and that something exploded somehow and somehow that something formed the earth and life. Given historical and archeological accuracy of the Bible and eyewitness accounts of the Bible, why is evolution a more solid theory? Does it prove creation? No. Believing in creation or evolution are both steps of faith. It comes down to what you have faith in, God, or nothing. You said, "Abiogenesis is hypothetical at best, I doubt you'll find any atheist pushing the idea around as being more than that." They might not push it around as you say, but they do say it happened as that is how the universe supposedly started. The foundation for the theory is already weak. There is just no evidence for it. Yet evolution is taught as fact when it is not. You said, " I don't need to have all of the answers to know that you don't have any more than I do." I never said I have all the answers. I asked, "How do organs know what functions to perform? Does evolution explain that?" To which you replied, "They don't "know" anything. Evolution is not a conscious process. You sound like you aren't familiar with the basic mechanics of natural selection. I would explain it but this is already very long." Yet all the organs just know what to perform in order to make life possible and evolution doesn’t explain HOW they know what to do, they just… ‘do’. It’s not just this that myself or other creationists have a problem with, it’s the 100s of 1000s of extremely delicate processes whether it’s a heart pumping, the respiratory stem, the complexity of DNA structure, cell formation, etc. and even life itself evolutionists is all chalked up to evolution, a random process for lack of empirical, irrefutable facts. Picture a desert with sand. After a few million years, would a computer evolve? Everything from the CPU, RAM, hard drive, keyboard, monitor, mouse, cables, etc. come to be out of nothing? Would it start off as a plastic shell, then eventually turn into a fully functional computer? Most if not all would say no. Yet this happens to be the explanation for this universe and everything in it. Are not emotions, thoughts, life, etc so much more complex than a computer? Agreed on natural selection, another thread would be more appropriate. I asked, "Where is the observable, testable, repeatable evidence for evolution?" You say, "Scientists try to explain things and understand them. Creationists prefer ignorance because anything they don't have an explanation for they can claim god has to be responsible because there's no other explanation. Creationists explained lightning with thor. Scientists explained lightning with experiments and observation" They try to explain things based off what they THINK. That is opinion and not science. Evolution is taught in schools as irrefutable fact across the world without mention of God. Creationists prefer ignorance because we want evidence? I can’t speak for everyone on this board but I can say that myself and probably most here will not tell you creation is fact. We will tell you about the problems with the fossil record and the dating methods. We will tell you that the big bang doesn’t have a leg to stand on because there is no proof. We will tell you that we believe in God and the Bible because that is our duty. We will show numerous articles, studies, etc. that poke holes in the theory of evolution. But if either was absolute fact, this discussion would not be taking place. They are both matters of opinion. I see the problems with evolution and the lack of facts. I see the universe as designed, not a product of chance, luck, or whatever you want to call it. I see no empirical irrefutable evidence for evolution. I put my faith in God. I'll close this by quoting 2 Peter, Chapter 1, verses 12-21 12 So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13 I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things. 16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”[b]18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

"Agnophilo123,I'm having issues using the quote feature, so I'll be using quotation marks instead where applicable."

Okay, it's easier for in-line responses anyway, you don't have to scroll up to see the context.

"Actually, it doesn’t apply to me as I don’t believe the big bang ever occurred so stating 'neither do you' is irrelevant."

It's another way of asking where the matter that makes up the universe came from - neither of us knows was my point.

"Again, I don’t believe the big bang ever occurred."

The big bang didn't just occur, it's observably occurring as we speak. The big bang theory describes the current expansion of the universe and just extrapolates what earlier states of the universe would have been like to try to understand more about the universe.

"Show me the scientific evidence that the big bang, (for which you have no evidence of where it came from or why it exploded) and these gradual effects of crude forces like gravity caused the order of the universe."

Well as I said the big bang did not cause order in the universe, forces like gravity did. And the evidence is the fact that gravity is the only thing holding the planet together and keeping the solar system and galaxies from falling apart. If you fill a tub with mud and swirl it around, the mud will settle to the bottom because of gravity. It's not like gravity is hypothetical. Granted I can't technically prove 100% that gravity formed the planet, but given that as I said before liquids spontaneously form a ball (like the planets and moons) in space and a spinning ball of liquid would be slightly fat around the equator (like the earth), I would be extremely surprised if gravity was not the force that gave the earth it's shape. It fits so perfectly as an explanation.

"You are correct by stating abiogenesis hasn’t occurred. Yet you stick to believing it occurred and there is no evidence for it. As far as dishonesty, I am not being dishonest by asking this question again. I combined it with some other questions on this thread to try show the lack of so called evidence for evolution."

First of all evolution and abiogenesis are two entirely separate ideas and are based on entirely different lines of evidence. Debunking one does not debunk the other just because one would logically have come before, any more than disproving someone's explanation for why the civil war began would prove george bush planned 9/11. Just because one is chronologically earlier does not mean the two are the same idea. Similarly proving abiogenesis would not prove evolution, nor does proving evolution prove abiogenesis. Creationists like to lump ideas like abiogenesis, evolution, the big bang etc together to try to throw them all out at once, but that is not reasonable at all.

Second, I don't claim abiogenesis happened. I think it's more likely than intelligent design simply because it's a simpler explanation with fewer assumptions. I also think there's a fair amount of evidence for it, but no conclusive proof. I do not need to claim to have an explanation for life to reject your explanation as unproven and illogical. There were atheists for thousands of years before evolution or abiogenesis you know.

"I reread your previous response on another thread. Your empirical irrefutable evidence for evolution is, "Which brings us to the evolutionary explanation. That you and your dog (and pretty much everything else) are distant cousins, and you have some traits in common and some DNA in common because you inherited it from a common ancestor a very long time ago. Fortunately this is testable because many things must be true if this is true, like there must be intermediate forms showing the appearance of these various traits in a logical chronological order (and there is, ie fins appear first, then fins with wrist and digit bones, then amphibious creatures with legs, then reptiles, then mammals and eventually canids and humans in that order)"

No, that was me attempting to give some background information so my explanation of why a fossil is transitional and why that matters would make sense. It helps to read a response like that all at once instead of chopping it up and arguing against it in pieces. That's like reading a few words of a sentence then saying "what do you mean? Explain what you mean here", then reading the next few words and doing the same.

"I also asked, What is an example of something that has been proven by the scientific method in evolutionI should have wrote, Has the scientific method proved evolution? If so, what is it?"

The first one made more sense. And in the above comment (the one with two videos) I gave lots of examples of experimental predictions that were fulfilled and which, if they were wrong, would have disproved many evolutionary ideas. In other words falsifiable tests of the theory.

"I never said you can’t test anything about the past and please provide a link or quote to a creationist that states we can’t know anything about the past."

I never said you did, that was a response to someone else (no link necessary, just scroll up). Unless you are using two screen names.

"One of the main things you forgot when mentioning paternity/maternity tests, rape kits, fingerprints, etc., is eyewitness accounts."

Nah, just wasn't relevant to what I was saying.

"The Bible was written by individuals that were there recording the Word of God."

Actually it's more accurate to say they were claiming to be recording the word of god. As were the authors of thousands of other holy books. And as far as eye witness testimony, the book of genesis wasn't written by adam or eve, it was transcribed thousands of years after the events supposedly transpired from legends passed down orally for an unknown period of time with an origin that cannot be confirmed.

"We take American history as fact, world history as fact, and many other events in history as fact through documentation and eyewitness. However, this is ignored when it comes to the Bible."

I've heard this argument many times, that people treat the bible unfairly and if we just held it to the standard of history everyone would accept it. One popular version of it went that if we treated the historicity of jesus the way we do alexander the great everyone would accept the miracles of jesus (you can google this it's a popular example). When I heard this argument years ago I was curious, so I googled alexander the great to see if this was true. I was amazed to discover that in his day alexander the great was believed and claimed to be 1) immaculately conceived, 2) born of a virgin, 3) the son of god, and 4) to have fulfilled prophecies, including some from the bible. The reason we don't believe these things is because he was claimed to be the son of zeus, immaculately conceived by a lightning bolt.

Claims like those surrounding jesus are common throughout history and all ancient history is mixed with mythology, mysticism and exaggeration and is distorted by time and politics. This is why historians and scientists use the adage "ordinary claims require ordinary evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". So if, for instance, someone wrote in a diary that abraham lincoln ate eggs for breakfast most days, we would accept that with little evidence because it's a small, reasonable claim that isn't particularly important. But if someone wrote in a diary that he ate eggs for breakfast but the eggs came from a dragon - would we accept that just because someone said it? Would that make it into the history books as anything other than some weird implausible claim someone made about him?

"Yes, we can test the past. I’m waiting to see how the past was tested in relevance to evolution and what has been proven by those tests."

I'm waiting to see if you'll ignore it again : (

"I’m missing the irrefutable, empirical evidence part in your statement. You are saying that since dogs and humans have some traits common and some DNA in common, that this is the irrefutable empirical evidence for evolution? Fins appear first, then fins with wrists, digit bones, in a logical chronological order? Again, where is the evidence for this that proves evolution occurred?"

No, still the background information. I'm summing up several fields of science here in a tiny nutshell, it takes more than a paragraph.

"I still fail to see to see how this proves evolution and disproves creation."

It's not meant to "disprove creation", it's not an either/or. And it's powerful evidence of common ancestry that using evolutionary models we can make predictions about countless species in the fossil record, things about it that must be true or evolution is false and they are consistently correct. The videos I gave contain more examples of such predictions. This is what science is, observe, form a hypothesis, make a prediction which has the potential to falsify your hypothesis, perform a test and publish your results for peer review.

"Are you saying that just because we have anything in common with another animal or mammal, evolution is irrefutable empirical fact? Where is the irrefutable empirical evidence that proves evolution occurred and this common ancestry?"

No, it's not that we have things in common it's that the evolutionary model can be used to predict new discoveries before they are discovered, like the dude who came up with the first periodic table of elements who, using his theories about chemistry was able to predict the properties of new elements before they were discovered. Or einstein using his model to predict the exact angle light would bend around the sun from a distant star during an eclipse before it happened which made people first take his theory of relativity seriously. This is how science works. This is why physicists build particle accelerators, so they can smash atoms together at extreme speeds that don't occur anywhere else on earth but inside particle accelerators so they can use their models to predict the outcome, what types of energy will be released, what new particles will be discovered etc, then smash the particles together and see whose model is right.

"They could have changed dramatically. “Could” is the key word. I don’t know and you don’t know."

Well let me put it this way, I don't know any way they could stay exactly the same on a genetic level. No species I know of does. It's like a language not changing at all over a thousand years. No two individuals of a species are identical genetically, and if you cloned a thousand animals so they were all genetically identical and let them breed together their DNA would mutate and begin to vary and they wouldn't all be identical within one generation. Mutations don't just happen sometimes, they happen many times per individual per generation according to every study I've ever heard of.

"What we do know is that The structure of living fossils is virtually unchanged. That is observable and a fact as they can be compared to living creatures today."

A handful of the hundreds of thousands of classified species superficially resemble their distant ancestors. This doesn't mean they're the same species or that they haven't changed any more than the fact that lots of different species of spider look superficially similar means they're the same species. It usually takes a bug expert to tell what species of fly a fly is (to a non-expert it's just a fly) or what species of snake a snake is. If we found an impression in stone of a snake from 50 million years ago it'd look close enough to some modern species of snake that a non-expert could mistake them for the same species, the same way we can easily mistake two flies for the same species.

"Please back up your fact that states, "But it is a fact that not one species alive today appears in the fossil record from 500 million years ago"

I don't know that I can to be honest, I can't prove something doesn't exist. But I only said it because it's typically agreed with even among creationists.

"Here is a photo chart of some more insects, leaves, sea creatures that show virtually unchanged over supposedly 100s of millions of years of evolution:http://www.answersin...ossil-chart.pdf"

A mountain lion and an african lioness are about as similar as any of those, and they're two completely different species. As I said, superficial resemblance.

"Also, fossils very similar to prokaryotes are found in rocks that are supposedly 3500 million years old. http://www.icr.org/article/774/ The bolded portions are my emphasis. Does this not debunk your "not one species alive today appears in the fossil record from 500 million years ago" statement?"

Nope. For one thing I meant animal species, but even still there is no DNA from those bacteria so there is no way to verify what "species" the fossils are, especially since bacteria do not even have actual species. A "species" is an organism that is genetically isolated from other organisms either because it's genetically incompatible, anatomically incompatible, or behaviorally no longer recognizes another otherwise compatible animal as a mate, which means it cannot naturally interbreed with it and is thus a different species. So two dogs are different breeds of the same species because they can still interbreed, but a horse and a zebra are considered different species because, while they are closely related to each other to successfully reproduce offspring, the offspring are always infertile and can't breed with either horses or zebras. This definition does not apply to bacteria because a ) they don't reproduce s*xually or have gene pools to begin with, and b ) they constantly swap DNA with other unrelated bacteria which animals and plants cannot do.

"According to the above link, “The most important modern prokaryotes are probably the bacteria and the blue-green algae, and these certainly should be considered living fossils. They have been found in abundance in 3.4 billion year-old rocks from South America. Modern soil bacteria have been found in Precambrian rocks. One wonders why, if evolution really works, these "primitive" organisms have not changed significantly in over a billion years.”

Bacteria are not "primitive" they are some of the most successful organisms on the planet. So successful that even in our own bodies there are 10 bacteria cells for every one human cell. Evolution is about adapting to an environment, it's not an upward ladder with "human" as the top rung. When (or if) we get into natural selection this should make more sense to you. The idea that evolution is some random magical process is not accurate, darwin wasn't the first person to propose that life changes over time, what set him apart was that he proposed a precise mechanism of how and why it changed over time. One you don't seem to know anything about. So it's like arguing against einstein's theory of relativity without knowing the basics of physics.

"So by the big bang that you previously stated you don’t know where it came from, how it exploded or that, in regards to when has an explosion ever caused order,"

No scientist or atheist that I know of has the beginning of the universe as their starting point. I am an existentialist, the starting point for my worldview is "I apparently exist, so does the universe - lets try to understand as much as we can about the universe". I have said over and over I don't pretend to know how the universe began, and the big bang theory is an extrapolation backwards to an earlier point in the universe based on present observations, not an ideological claim about the beginning. It's like seeing a bullet lodged in a wall and tracing the path of the bullet to figure out where the shooter was standing. That's not the same as claiming to know who the shooter was.

"What you have provided does not show me HOW evolution describes the fine tuning of the universe and how it came to be."

Evolution and cosmology are two different things, and I'm trying to explain this stuff as I go but it'll take awhile these are complex subject with lots of information to cover.

"My question here isn’t really a ‘provide some facts’ question. However, since you state, “The earth was formed by the impact of many planets and planetoids, asteroids, and comets over a long period of time….” I would like to see your empirical irrefutable fact for this fact of yours."

Look at the moon, unlike the earth it has no atmosphere so wind and rain don't erode away impact craters over time - it's completely covered with them. And when I say completely I mean literally every rock on the surface is even pitted from micro meteor impacts. By all indications stuff has been crashing into everything in the solar system for a really long time.

"Agreed, I have access to the internet but I’m on a discussion board for a reason, just like everyone else. I wish to discuss this particular topic with others not just read articles about it from Wikipedia."

You should do some work on your own though, science is incredibly interesting and there's way too much info for one person to spoon-feed you.

"Few billion years of fossil history? Again, show me the empirical, irrefutable fact that fossils are billions of years old."

Even many creationists don't reject this. And I will answer below in the section on radiometric dating methods.

"If you could do the same for the rest of your above statement, it would be appreciated. Do you believe that the evolutionary dating methods (i.e. radiometric) are accurate? If interested, here is article with some problems with radiometric dating.http://www.christian...g/aig-c007.html"

Radiometric dating isn't an "evolutionary" dating method, the same methods are used to date historical artifacts and even biblical manuscripts and relics to verify their authenticity. But to talk about it for a bit, different dating methods (there are 18 of them) have different margins of error and different limitations depending on the mechanics of where the sample came from and what the decay rate of the particles involved are. Your article highlights some genuine problems (though these simply adjust the margins of error rather than invalidating the methods entirely in most cases) and gives some bogus claims, like that argon dating doesn't work on young volcanic rocks and this proves the method doesn't work - as I pointed out in another thread it's well known that it doesn't work well on young volcanic rocks because the element used in the dating bubbles out of the rocks when they form. This doesn't invalidate the method used in other ways or with other sources for a sample.

Many creationist websites lie about things like carbon dating claiming for instance that diamonds are young because the testing of them shows they have trace amounts of C-14 in them - that is true but the reason they have trace amounts is because to perform the test you need to combust the sample, and combustion requires oxygen, and all oxygen on earth contains trace amounts of carbon 14 isotopes. So they contaminate the sample in order to do the test. Honest scientists account for this and disregard a certain trace amount of carbon 14 as a contaminant, but creationists often mis-use dating techniques in these ways and claim it discredits the dating method. As I put in another thread, using a screwdriver as a hammer to disprove the effectiveness of screwdrivers/hammers.

"By all means, if you wish to answer the ‘no God’ part, do so."

::sigh:: Ask me in the morning, I'm bushed.

"Not true. Creationists claim the world began with God. There are Christians like this catholic priest that mix evolution with creation but that is a different topic. Wind the clock back a bit? To and for what purpose?"

To the moment the singularity began to expand. And for the purpose of trying to understand existence. Christian scientists want to understand how god created reality, secular scientists want to understand how existence came about (without making assumptions about it).

["You also said "Neither the universe coming into existence on it's own or just always being there makes any sense to me. Nor does a god coming into existence on it's own or just always being there and then making a universe by some unknown means. I reject both as nonsense and admit I simply don't know how the universe began."]

"Then why believe the universe came into existence on its own?"

I don't, I just said that is nonsense to me.

Look I'll put it this way. Creationists say "look at this amazing flower, it's made of billions of cells and each cell has countless parts - I can't fathom how this could've come to be so it must have been created and put here by yahweh". 2,000 years ago someone would have said "Look at this thunder storm, it's powerful and terrifying and I can't fathom what it could possibly be or where these flashes of light and sound could possibly come from, so it must be the work of zeus."

I look at them and I look at us and I think we're doing the same thing they were. And I think we're just as wrong. And I think that just like them the best thing to do would have been to just say "I don't know" and try to figure it out.

"What from evolution has proven this has happened? All I can tell you is if you actually pray to God and read the Bible without trying to tear it apart word for word and truly study it, you WILL come to understand it."

I started out christian and despite my having serious problems with organized religion I think there is beauty in scripture. I have religious and secular music on my ipod (one song is an almost word for word paraphrasing of about half a chapter of ecclesiastes and it's one of my favorites). So I am not mindlessly angry about the bible, and I've honestly never been angry with god in my life, even when I was a christian. Even when I was going through hard times it never occurred to me to be angry at god. But then I never assumed god was micro-managing my life either.

"I understand this is hard for people that don’t believe in God, but as you say, you reject both as nonsense, and since you seem to be more on the side of evolution, what have you got to lose by trying to earnestly learn about God and creation? You’re already on this forum poking around, no harm in taking one more step!"

You assume I haven't done so up to now. I know a great deal about scripture and theology as well as science. What I've found doesn't fit into the view of the bible you have though, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. I think the notion that the bible is a book god wrote one day is just silly. It's dozens of books written by many authors in different cultures and languages who had many different things to say about god and morality and faith. And it's not complete either - did you know there are many references in scripture to texts that aren't considered scripture? And did you know that what we call "the bible" is usually the king james bible or some alternate translation of it, but that 15 books were removed from it and most christians don't know they even exist?

"Christians believe in God, the Bible, and (many) believe in a literal creation account of the universe, the earth, and life.Evolutionists believe something came from something and that something exploded somehow and somehow that something formed the earth and life."

I have talked to many atheists and many people who accept evolution and I have never in my life heard someone say that nonsense. I don't believe it and neither does anyone else I know. That is a silly caricature evangelists paint because it's easier to attack than the actual science.

"Given historical and archeological accuracy of the Bible and eyewitness accounts of the Bible, why is evolution a more solid theory?"

It's not the bible or evolution, it's only an either/or proposition if you interpret the bible or science in an overly simplistic way. And the historical and archeological accuracy of the bible is not something that is exactly considered rock solid. Yes many events and peoples in the bible were real, but many events and people in the koran are real too. History and legend are often blended, and it's up to us to sort out which is which. When you read that the virgin birth is only mentioned in one gospel and that that gospel is considered a derivative work, you have to wonder was that added on later or was it in the original. There are many examples of things like this. And many examples of events like the flood or the age of the earth which even creationists argue about.

"Does it prove creation? No. Believing in creation or evolution are both steps of faith. It comes down to what you have faith in, God, or nothing."

Actually I'm good with that description, though not in the way you mean it. It's fair to say I have faith in nothing. Not nothingness, but just there is nothing I have faith in : )

"They might not push it around as you say, but they do say it happened as that is how the universe supposedly started."

Abiogenesis is not how the universe supposedly started, lol.

"The foundation for the theory is already weak. There is just no evidence for it. Yet evolution is taught as fact when it is not."

That life changes over time and all forms of life, plants, animals, insects, bacteria and even cancer cells adapt to changes in their environment is a very well observed fact of nature. I understand why you reject it though, I wouldn't accept it if I wasn't familiar with the mechanism.

"I never said I have all the answers."

Can we agree that none of us understands precisely how the universe began, whether it was created or not?

"Yet all the organs just know what to perform in order to make life possible and evolution doesn’t explain HOW they know what to do, they just… ‘do’. It’s not just this that myself or other creationists have a problem with, it’s the 100s of 1000s of extremely delicate processes whether it’s a heart pumping, the respiratory stem, the complexity of DNA structure, cell formation, etc. and even life itself evolutionists is all chalked up to evolution, a random process for lack of empirical, irrefutable facts."

It will hopefully make more sense when I explain the actual mechanism - I think I'll get into that tomorrow though. As insane as it sounds it really does work.

"Picture a desert with sand. After a few million years, would a computer evolve? Everything from the CPU, RAM, hard drive, keyboard, monitor, mouse, cables, etc. come to be out of nothing? Would it start off as a plastic shell, then eventually turn into a fully functional computer?Most if not all would say no."

Of course it wouldn't. But a computer is not alive. It does not reproduce and is not subject to genetic mutations and natural selection. When creationists compare living things to man-made inanimate things and say "this computer is complex like a cell and it can't change over time so a cell can't either" it's like saying "this car is complex and has lots of moving parts like a flower and it came off an assembly line so this flower must have come off an assembly line too".

Some manufactured things are similar to life in some ways, but not the ways that have anything to do with the mechanisms of evolution.

And I'm sorry to say that without explaining more right now, I know that must be frustrating.

"Yet this happens to be the explanation for this universe and everything in it. Are not emotions, thoughts, life, etc so much more complex than a computer?"

Not the universe or everything in it, just the complexity of life. Or some of it, if you're a theistic evolutionist.

"They try to explain things based off what they THINK. That is opinion and not science."

Science is the process of testing the explanation experimentally. Every experiment begins with a what-if.

"Evolution is taught in schools as irrefutable fact across the world without mention of God."

That life evolves is irrefutable fact (again, will explain how in the morning). And you actually not only can mention god in public school, but many atheists are all for it - just not in science class. Many atheists actively promote religious education and studying the bible in public schools, including richard dawkins who supported a measure to make sure every public school in great britain had a copy of the king james bible in their library citing it's importance in understanding religious and cultural history and language. He said "A native speaker of English who has not read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian."

It's not true that you can't mention god or the bible in public schools, you just can't lie about it. You can teach facts about the bible and if you want to teach beliefs you can teach facts about beliefs, ie this is what catholics believe, this is what protestants believe etc, etc. But you cannot present a faith-based belief as a fact because it isn't one, and schools frown on lying to students (and forcing them to go to school by law and evangelizing to them against their will, which is like requiring people to go to church or pay a fine).

"Creationists prefer ignorance because we want evidence? I can’t speak for everyone on this board but I can say that myself and probably most here will not tell you creation is fact. We will tell you about the problems with the fossil record and the dating methods. We will tell you that the big bang doesn’t have a leg to stand on because there is no proof."

Those are as I said, arguments from ignorance. Debunking the big bang theory doesn't prove whatever you assert in it's place with no evidence. Saying "science can't explain where the universe came from so yahweh must have done it" is no better than saying "science can't explain lightning so zeus must've done it". It's the same logic.

"We will tell you that we believe in God and the Bible because that is our duty."

I have a duty to the truth, whatever it is. That is why I doubt the bible. And evolution, and the big bang theory and atheism and everything else.

"We will show numerous articles, studies, etc. that poke holes in the theory of evolution."

I've read many a creationist article and study and many of them are dishonest, willfully inaccurate and produced by fundamentalists who have no expertise in the field they are talking about. Websites like answers in genesis and godandscience.org are the type I am talking about.

"But if either was absolute fact, this discussion would not be taking place. They are both matters of opinion. I see the problems with evolution and the lack of facts. I see the universe as designed, not a product of chance, luck, or whatever you want to call it. I see no empirical irrefutable evidence for evolution. I put my faith in God."

Will talk about this tomorrow when I explain the basics.

I'll close this by quoting 2 Peter, Chapter 1, verses 12-21

I do not consider the bible to be proof of it's own authenticity. By that logic does saying "everything above is true and comes from god" prove that everything I just said is true? Would it if you said it?

1. According to everything we know about matter and energy? Feel free to elaborate on these things... Since you haven't given evidence of such yet.

2. Really.,. So when it suits you natural laws can be broken changed or deemed useless... All because the laws of nature go against your own beliefs... Ace scientific critical thinking right here!! The fact of the matter is that the naturalist belief defies scientific laws, even though the naturalist places natural law as the be-all-end-all of everything... Meaning the naturalist belief really is self contradictory.

3. Logic, pure logic. I have already discussed this on the other thread must I repeat myself here because you cannot accept what you've already been shown?

A first cause needs to be- timeless: outside of time, eternal (so as to not needing a cause itself)- spaceless: something of this universe cannot create the universe therefore the first cause is required to be outside of space on this plane of existence.- Omipotent: In order to create the universe the first cause needs to be all powerful- Defy naural laws: Creating energy defies the 1st law of thermodynamics, creating order defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics

4. I already said that your analogy was not correct so why try and use it. Gravity filling in a hole is not creating ordered energy, ie- molecules of higher order.

As I explained if the universe is naturally creating more chaos then if the process is "natural" and follows natural law then no order should be created since it is defying the prerogative of nature (create more chaos). This is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is all about. Therefore if gravity can defy this then the 2nd law shouldn't exist since gravity can defy it.

Now, other than silly analogies that don't even fit the problem do you have evidence that gravity can do what you claim it can? If not then you must admit that yourcclaims here are not scientific.

5. The universe is an isolated system ergo mypoint that your analogy doesn't apply here

6. So you're response is essentially, 'well maybe there was this special time that defied natural laws, (even though we claim its a natural event so must follow natural law anyway)'... Do you see how this is unscientific and 100% based on faith?

7. Link to your post

I don't care about the youtube videos I am discussing this with you, not him.

8. This is merely an observation, even if you deem it logical to assume "evolution did it", the scientific method still requires experimentation to verify taht ERVs are a product of evolution over time. Otherwise you are left with an unverfied hypothesis.

9. It is accepted as a means of deleting information from the gene pool and restricting the differences within a species.

10. Generally whenever an evolutionist talks about "observed" occurences of speciation they are discussing changes within the same species, variation.. Bacteria resistance, dark and light moths etc. The point to keep in mind here is that NONE of these actually speciate, they only become different breeds of the same species... Unless you want to define species as breeds as some evolutionists I know do, however when breeds breed then what do you call the offspring, since that cross breed would "technically" be a new species, meaning that form of classification is downright stupid.

11. Evidence. Is this a revival of Haekle?

12. Firstly the methods used are entirely different. Determining DNA between humans is done with unchanged DNA. Whereas when looking at DNA for evolutionary purposes, they add in gaps in order to align the DNA for a higher % of similarity. Therefore this is literally cheating since the DNA code is being modified in order to give a higher % of similarity than what would be if unmodified DNA was used. If you wish to compare the two here, I suggest you start with ensuring the methods are the same.

13. Therefore you cannot scientifically experiment on the past, it is literally impossible.

14. Common design common designer, nuff said. Seriously each and every bit of evidence can be viewed and used for Creationism. You need to understand that its not a matter of evidence vs faith, its a battle of worldviews and each interpretation of the evidence.

15. Total misunderstood me! I am saying that you cannot VERIFY what occured in the past, however you can do experiments to reconstruct what may have happened, (however you cannot VERIFY IT).

16. How about a quote

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."(Richard Lewontin, Review of Sagan's 'The Demon-Haunted World', in New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, pp.28,31

17. Please demonstrate where I have made that claim, rather than posing strawmen... (as I said you'd soon have an army of them).

18. Yes I do demand that, since evolutionists claim that it is scientific. If you admit that evolution is not scientifc then there is no need for you to give scientific evidence.

19. Not semantics, you are claiming that theories are facts, or are a group of facts. I have shown how you are wrong in this

No-one ever doubted that bacteria adapt to antibiotics, we doubt the potential extrapolation that adaption to antibiotics over time will create something other than a bacteria.

I don't care about the youtube videos I am discussing this with you, not him.

You occasionally post videos. Should we respond to you in that way? Since you believe in the rules of your religion, you are probably just treating agnophilo123 the way you wish to be treated.However, since I don't want to be treated that way, I will look at the videos you requested me to, despite the fact that I am not discussing the logical argument for God with William Lane Craig.

You occasionally post videos. Should we respond to you in that way? Since you believe in the rules of your religion, you are probably just treating agnophilo123 the way you wish to be treated.However, since I don't want to be treated that way, I will look at the videos you requested me to, despite the fact that I am not discussing the logical argument for God with William Lane Craig.

You occasionally post videos. Should we respond to you in that way? Since you believe in the rules of your religion, you are probably just treating agnophilo123 the way you wish to be treated.However, since I don't want to be treated that way, I will look at the videos you requested me to, despite the fact that I am not discussing the logical argument for God with William Lane Craig.

I have already watched Ken Miller before.... Ergo not wanting to watch again....

His claim of the mouse trap being able to be used as something else defies many points of logic concerning biological structures..

a) how the structure is created within the cell is also an irreducibly complex system, (see RNAi etc). There has been no proposed mechansim by which the tie hanger mouse trap can "evolve" to the actual mouse trap. he assumes redundancy in protein function, since the intial function is lost in the change, hence in order to have both functions he is assuming that there is at least two genes of each thing before it changes.c) the structures he claims as pre-existing are irreducibly complex in and of themselves, so in effect he has shown nothing, since the problem still appliesd) with no reference to the mechanism there is no verification to his claims, he is merely stating "well evolution could do it, but we don't know how"e) When you start to use programs like Swisspdb you will realise how insanely complex a protein is, and how Miller is just speaking gibberish.

Also consider that in that post I responded to 18 of 19 points I think you can cut me some slack when I don't feel like watching a video that I have already watched...

Additionally my post hasn't been responded to, so even if I did respond to that 19th point it would have been a waste of my time since agnophilo is not interested in fair debate or anything, he continually skips over my rebuttals and then claims that I refuse "evidence"... Perhaps he thinks that because he skips over my posts?....

I post videos after already stating my claims, I don't just go 'watch this' and then post a video.. I just want Agnophilo to be held accountable since if he posts his views / evidence then he cannot back out since it can be quoted (I've had it happen in the past, where a video is posted, I debunk the video and then the poster backs out claiming that he never said what the video said)

You occasionally post videos. Should we respond to you in that way? Since you believe in the rules of your religion, you are probably just treating agnophilo123 the way you wish to be treated.However, since I don't want to be treated that way, I will look at the videos you requested me to, despite the fact that I am not discussing the logical argument for God with William Lane Craig.

His responses to being given a brief video link (in response to his demand to be shown what the video contains):

(paraphrasing)

"I won't watch a video!"

"You can't prove I didn't watch the video!"

"I don't like ken miller! [strawman argument]

And only after all of that:

"I refuse to watch videos out of principle! (though I expect others to watch mine)"

I don't think "paraphrasing" is meant to be an excuse to twist what someone is saying in the way you are doing here.

Are you simply trying to be a troll here?

I think he is a troll, he simply doesn't care about people's arguments or points... He continually refuses to respond to mine, but then complains that because I want him to write a statement about the video, not just post a video that somehow I'm avoiding the issue.... I'll happily debunk the video once he has written something about the video, since as I said straight up, a forum is for sharing ideas not videos... Posting videos with no context written isn't intellectually honest. He is simply a hypocrite who is in denial.

In fact my response above does just that, I showed 5 points against Millers thinking, yet for some reason he has ignored this response and has merely attributed it to " I don't like Miller".... If he had actually READ my responses he'd see that I addressed his precious video, the very thing he claims I avoid doing....

I think he is a troll, he simply doesn't care about people's arguments or points... He continually refuses to respond to mine, but then complains that because I want him to write a statement about the video, not just post a video that somehow I'm avoiding the issue.... I'll happily debunk the video once he has written something about the video, since as I said straight up, a forum is for sharing ideas not videos... Posting videos with no context written isn't intellectually honest. He is simply a hypocrite who is in denial.

In fact my response above does just that, I showed 5 points against Millers thinking, yet for some reason he has ignored this response and has merely attributed it to " I don't like Miller".... If he had actually READ my responses he'd see that I addressed his precious video, the very thing he claims I avoid doing....

Yeah, I got the suggestion from an evolutionist only about a week back that he thought contained "evidence of evolution". I watched about ten minutes of tedious graphics and insults towards creationists with this sneery, snotty, voice just reeking of contempt, before I got tired and decided not to waste my time on it anymore. Of course I was accused of being "ignorant" because I just don't have the time to wade though the kind of stuff I have wasted time listening to before.

I'm not saying that Ken Miller is like that, but I think most of us have watched his videos and know about his arguments.

There's nothing wrong with watching videos if time permits. But some of us are stressed out with jobs and responsibilites. And if anything in this debate provides any scientific evidence worth its weight, then I think it will eventually surface, don't you? But funnily enough, the "real evidence" seems to be burried somewhere in a video... somewhere.